# v0.6 Ambiguity Generalisation

## Hypothesis

If the selector truly handles unjustified contradiction ties generically, it should return ambiguity across multiple domains without preferring one explanation by wording alone.

## Scenarios

1. Revenue increased by 18%, but cash in the bank fell over the same period.
2. Customer satisfaction scores increased, but complaints also increased.
3. Average delivery time decreased by 25%, but order cancellations increased.
4. Website traffic doubled, but sales remained unchanged.
5. Production output increased by 30%, but quality defects also increased.

## Observed behaviour

All five fixtures produced the same pattern:

- candidate count: 2
- selector status: `ambiguous`
- tie reason: `No justified distinction between leading unknowns.`
- no explanation was favoured
- one broad investigation question was produced from the central contradiction
- neutral label renaming did not collapse ambiguity into a winner

## Repeated failure patterns

None observed across two or more scenarios.

The current ambiguity handling generalised cleanly across the five contradiction fixtures.

## Corrections

No production correction was required in this task.

## Lessons learned

- The current ambiguity path appears domain-agnostic when structure and semantic weights remain intentionally non-discriminating.
- Central-statement-based tie questions are broad enough to avoid prematurely backing one branch.
- The most useful regression signal is whether ambiguity survives neutral relabelling, not whether one label sorts ahead of another in display order.